Abstract

Within the law no 23 year 2002 about Children Protection article 92 subsection (1) was explained tahat every person who had done violence or violence threat, force, gimmick, several lies or persuade a child to do or to let one child do pornographic act purposively, will be sanctioned with imprisonment for longest period 15 (fifteen) years and shortes for 3 (three) year and fine for maximun Rp 300.000.000,00 (three hundred million rupiah) and least is Rp 60.000.000,00 (sixty million rupiah). It sis very clear within the law which gives protection for under-age children as pornographic victim. However in the reality judges has rarely used this article to capture pornographic criminal. Such as within the decision of pengadilan negeri malang (State Court) for case No 341/Pid.B/2009/PN.Malang in which within its decision judges didn’t use this article and use article 293 KUHP whereas pornographic victim belong to under-age children and pornographic performer is an active police officer and the incidence occur when the police has done his job as a plice officer. The judges only gives criminal punishment for eight month toward the defendant though defendant is a police officer that supposes to protect the society but this has supposedly not become a great excuse for the judges to give heavier punishment. This has draw interest of the author to examine the adjudicaation of close court for public in wich facts that appear during court might have been manipulated Moreover the victim is belonging to low economy family that is vulnerable to become victim of the law.
From the discussion, we might found out that what become main issues is defendant was not sanctioned using article 82 from law about cildren protection in which to be view from the case, judge suppose to be more sensitiv in order to give lesson or cure from a bad habit toward other pornographic actor and its juridical consequence of this adjudication who didn’Include law of children protection and justice aspect for the victim an the family.
According to the author, judges should be wiser in taking decision because from his decision one’s life might be concluded. In this adjudication, judges has include psychology fctor for at least by seeing victim as an underage girl ant future of that girl also justice asoect for pornographic victim not only because the girl was also making mistake but there are no justice for her.
Keywords: Children Protection, Adjudication, Juridical consequence